Guide line maximum length...

[Guest]

A quick question.  What is the maximum length of a guide line?  Or is it simply limited by how far the duration of a set will take you? (and back again of course!).

Thank you

[Guest]

a quick question or a trick question?

are you referring to a single guideline as it is in the bag before being used or the total length of a guideline for practical purposes?

personally i think the days of tying a bit of string within a dangerous environment and pretending it is sufficient to commit personnel into that environment have long gone!

dave bev

[fireftrm]

Dave

AN EXCELLENT REPLY!!

Oh, if only there were more people with such sense. Guidelines should be seen in FS Museums and nowhere else. There was an interesting (though I considered very diasppointing) thread elsewhere about a new design of line (still a piece of string) and the relative benefits of having premises owners fiting hooks to allow their use.....! Let us make this a true debate and I will champion the 'get rid of them' camp.

[Guest]

cheers mate.

i witnessed some trials at the fire service college a few weeks ago (or was it months!) interestingly the trials were revealing that although a fire was set 45m inside industrial b it revealed that firefighters were exposed to temperatures in excess of what is considered 'safe' for test purposes. this resulted in the firefighters being withdrawn before they could complete their task, ie rescue one casualty extinguish the fire.

the insulating qualities of the firefighting kit along with extended duration sets appeared to be the major factors as a range of personnel were used with differing levels of fitness etc.

dave bev

[Guest]

I agree with the above as I'm sure most do... however... I was asked the question and nobody knew the answer.  It's a textbook thing I'd like to know for any future occasion when I might be grilled by a superior.  I just like to know my stuff.  Can anybody answer?

Cheers

[fireftrm]

Ok then a 'text-book' reply - the length will depend on the time expended to get to the end and thus the capacity of the SMALLEST BA sets in use. In other words there is no set length! I would repsond that and see what they make of it - also fire back the question 'when would you consider using one?' and then move into a discussion on their merits and safety - that way you should get much evidence against your role - against criteria in Units 2, 3 and 7 I suggest!

[Guest]

FIREFTRM


How do you advocate getting rid of guidelines when the 2 main problems with them appear to be tying them off and the marking of them.

I have read this thread you are talking about and happen to agree that a guideline, properly and easily secured, and easy to read would be better than what we are doing just now, which is hoping that someone else gets an incident where they have to decide whether to use them or not.

I think we all agree that guidelines in their current form are at best, a hindrance, and at worse a liability and an accident waiting to happen.

[Billy]

I totally agree with the post above, but in relation to fireftrm's suggestion to get rid of them completely, I have to disagree.

How do we search ships, basements and complex structures and ensure we have done a full search without a guideline, and before anyone replies that no-one can recall casualties being rescued by a guideline- the point is that if we do not carry out a full and systematic search of a building- we as a fire authority are liable!

I cannot believe that we are still using guidelines with PPE that you have to remove to feel the tabs!

What if you burn your hands whilst taking off your gloves to check the tabs?

Does any one think that a brigade could defend a claim arising from any such injury?

Even if you hurt your hands whilst training with guidelines- the brigade could be held liable as we all know you have to remove your gloves to feel the tabs.

What has been done about it- not a lot!

[fireftrm]

Billy

Do the search using other equipment - PPV or ventilation! After all would we REALLY be laying guidlelines within an area ON FIRE? Guidelines are simply thin pieces of rope and are definitely combustible, not at al suitable for placing around areas involved in fire and certainly not a SAFE method of determining the egress as a result! Their use has been toatly superceded by technology for example PPV and TIC.

Your point about being burnt while feeling the tags has som emerit, however if the area is that hot it probably is still involved in fire, therefore the line may be destroyed anyway and its use would have been pointless. Ventilation will radically reduce the temperature as well as remove the smoke..............

As for the FA being liable for not finding the casualties, well hark back to the ventilation and TICs as being a far superior method of conducting the search and also (in the PPV case) making the atmosphere more survivable. In addition there have already been cases of FAs having had the deaths of Ffs on their conscience, at least partly caused through the use of guidelines.

Guest, I appreciate your comments, but am unsure what your point is. The last line 'I think we all agree that guidelines in their current form are at best, a hindrance, and at worse a liability and an accident waiting to happen' makes the most sense. Surely you do not advocate a modern line (maybe some different tags and of a fireproof material) being any more robust and less likely to be a hindrance? Or maybe you want us to have buildings wirth hooks all over and the 'modern' line, INSTEAD of proper risk management through use of equipment suited to the purpose like PPV and TIC. This latter safety argument is the one we should be posing to our employers, not seeking a modern version of an outdated, dangerous and hideoulsy slow length of string.

The first rule in risk management is Eliminate the hazard, which for searching is the smoke and heat,  we CAN do this through use of PPV (the HMI H&S even state that this should be the main risk management tool for the FRS - PPV confernece at Sunderland University. The use of 'safe' systems of work is at the 6th level of hazard reduction and PPE the last behind that. Continuation of the FAs failure to properly protect us and our potential casualties, should not be advocated and we need to join together in reminding them of the tools available NOW that can make us and our communities safer.

[Guest]

Fireftrm

As soon as you mention that the guidelines are combustible and would burn in a fire you are dismissing the first rule of firefighting as you are always taught never to pass fire- always put it out first!

In my opinion, you would never search a complicated  building with a TIC on its own, but could do it in conjunction with a guideline.

as for the removal of fire gloves- it is not just the heat that is the problem-it is the reduction of your level of protection in a risk environment, and should not be done in any occasion.
More importantly, we know we have to do it, but have done nothing to address the problem.

And yes, on the hierarchy of control measures, PPV comes much higher, but so does the cost as well, and whether we want to admit it or not- cost is important.

I still think that a guideline that is securely fitted and can be read with the current PPE on is an adequate control measure under certain circumstances.
 If I was in charge of a fire authority and had loads of money, I would have PPV, TIC's and also guidelines that worked on all fire appliances, but as most authorities aren't that well off, why not just give us guidelines that work in the meantime!!!

[Guest]

FIREFTRM

You say that the use of guidelines are totally superceded by technology, for example PPV and TIC, but if this was the case all appliances in the UK would carry PPV and TIC's. We all know this is not the case though, but they all carry guidelines and as the post above says, it would be good if they worked.....

[fireftrm]

Guest

You wrote You say that the use of guidelines are totally superceded by technology, for example PPV and TIC, but if this was the case all appliances in the UK would carry PPV and TIC's. We all know this is not the case though, but they all carry guidelines QUITE! But read my post again and you will see that I am saying we should be campaigning for our employers to CORRECTLY deal with the hazards we face and give us the equipment to allow us to eliminate tham - NOT equipemnt to allow a working practice to deal with such hazards. That most appliances do not carry PPV or TICs should not give us anything other than ammunition to fire to get them. Giving in to the cheap and old does us no favours, does our communities none and plays into the hands of employers who save money!

[Billy]

FIREFTRM

You state that  our employers should give us equipment to eliminate the hazards we face instead of equipment to allow working practices to deal with such hazards.

This suggestion could not be justified under Health and Safety legislation as i think they key words used are " ARE AS FAR AS REASONABLY PRACTICABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES"

Could it be argued that a correctly fitted guideline that you can read the tabs on is an adequate control measure when crews are searching large or complicated buildings? - I think so.

Could you force fire authorities to stop using guidelines at a cost of around £100 and start using TICs and PPV on each appliance at a cost of thousands of pounds- I don't think so, especially when TICs cannot guarantee you finding your way back to the point of entry.

[fireftrm]

Well a guideline guarantees you finding your back and a TIC doesn't? Surely there are recorded cases of Firefighters dying, having become confused by the guideline are there similar for TICs?

Before you try and say that your new guideline tagging will prevent that - I agree in principle, but you are a guideline business man. I am not trying to sell anything. I merely, truly, believ that we should be providing a greater level of risk control than a piece of string. I will never be convinced that a modern line is any major step forward. Yes an improvement, but that is all. It still requires laying (and why lay a guideline? As one guest above says you wouldn't in a fire - well if no fire GET RID OF THE SMOKE AND NO NEED FOR A GUIDELINE, OR A SEARCH!), it will still therefore take ages and the casualties, if they were alive, satnd little chance of being rescued in that condition. Most FRS are now purchasing PPV - and about time. The less progressive need no encouragement, let's not give them any!

PS if your FRS has not considered PPV as standard appliance kit do they still fit a LPP? - Maybe worth asking how many times that has been used to save a life and whether, the much cheaper, PPV fan would not be a better fitment - at least on every other machine? IRMP is about reducing the risk - PPV does!

[Guest]

FIREFTRM

Would you honestly suggest searching a large complicated building with only a TIC ?

A TIC only shows up heat and in a smoky environment, you would still get disorientated and possibly lose your way. I have used them at incidents and would never advocate using them to try and retrace your steps to your point of entry.

I also agree with you that in certain circumstances, PPV would be much better than a guideline and if you had both, I would choose the PPV.

I am not a guideline salesman but a Fire Officer, and this equipment was developed by firefighters, for firefighters, because the guidelines we use at the moment do not work.

I just think that if we know what the problems are, and we can improve on the design to make them safer, then we- as a fire service should be doing it.